Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
It appears that we can no longer see the difference.
My question is, do you know if G still pushes dmoz directory listed sites towards the top of it's natural listings? Has G stopped showing dmoz listings or are we merely unable to tell which is from dmoz and which not?
A dmoz directory listing, and subsequent G directory listing mean't that site's PR's were boosted so significantly that they leapt towards the top of SERP's. Recently G removed the entries that appear in it's directories. This is more precisely what my question relates to.
In the meantime have come across this enlightening thread: [webmasterworld.com...] Check it out to know more about WebmasterWorld sentiment on the topic.
Please explain then how sites that are in the G directory usually appear near the top of the SERPs?
I'm sure this is the case for many queries, but I think saying "usually" is too strong.
Of course, sites that are both in the directory and at the top of the regular SERPs should, in theory, be quality sites. That's the correlation. (It's not the link itself.)
Each dmoz page has a different PR - averaging between 3 and 7. Similarly each page shows a different number of listings, some less than G's recommended 100 some way more. Both these factors will influence your G PR, just as with other links. So I would think that your 3 would be the result of many factors, including the 2 above.
G has stated that it gives higher priority (ie. PR) to not for profit sites, including: government, educational, certain organisations and bodies. Since dmoz falls into the last of the 3 groups, a listing there counts for more than a listing from my for profit site. Thoughts?
Both these factors will influence your G PR, just as with other links. So I would think that your 3 would be the result of many factors, including the 2 above.
You're right, and I should've added that into my previous reply. The DMOZ links are fairly deep, no doubt.
G has stated that it gives higher priority (ie. PR) to not for profit sites
I've never seen or heard such a quote. Can you point me to your source for that?
Since dmoz falls into the last of the 3 groups, a listing there counts for more than a listing from my for profit site. Thoughts?
I still think you're trying to apply absolutes to something that's relative. Does a link from a deep DMOZ category count for more than a link from a commercial site with a PR=8 that's very relevant to your site? I'd say no. A DMOZ link is not necessarily any better than any other link, and I think GG has stated as much on many occasions here at WebmasterWorld.
I can think of at least five sensible explanations:
1) Sites which are really high-quality will tend to have both a listing and a high Google Rank independently, due to their quality.
2) Sites which are very well-marketed will tend to be SEO'd to do well in Google and also submitted to the ODP.
3) Sites which are long-standing seem to rank better in Google, and they also have a better probability of being listed in the ODP and especially the Google Directory on account of having been around longer.
4) ODP editors use Google like everyone else, so if they see a site on Google that wasn't in the ODP directory, they're likely to add it, hence, a good Google position resulting in an ODP and eventually Google directory listing.
5) An ODP/Google directory listing means a link from a page that is highly topical, so if part of Google's algorithm includes considering the overall relevance of the text on the pages that link to you, then the ODP link may give you an extra boost if someone's looking for a search term closely related to the specific theme of the directory page.
I can't see why Google would lie about the importance accorded an ODP or Google Directory link; if GoogleGuy says it's treated exactly the same as any other link, it probably is. The fact that there are plenty of directory-listed sites with poor Google ratings seems to support some of the alternate theories, imho.
A lot of people build their own directories of topics that interest them. Such efforts invariably involve a visit to DMOZ...which means the DMOZ listings quickly replicate themselves through numerous sites.
DMOZ actively encourages people to use their listings.
I've come across several web sites that have directly copied and pasted a pages from DMOZ. Each time a subdirectory gets duplicated, the sites in the directory get a PR vote. The people who copied DMOZ in 2001 and haven't updated are giving PR to a bunch of dead domains.
Good points Flicker and yintercept.
Wasn't aware Googleguy said that all pages are equal in the eyes of the G algo.
the higher priority for not for profit sites, governments and institutions/organisations came from a very long thread off WebProWorld. Twas 3/4 months back.
And someone from Google actually said this? I've seen a lot of theory and conjecture about it, mainly resulting from the Florida update, but that was all from webmasters who saw various directory listings doing well in G's SERPs. Theory and conjecture from upset webmasters is a far cry from someone at G actually saying it ... if you ever find that quote, please share it.
Oh is that ever true! I was trailing a non-commercial site, put up by a group that disbanded years ago. Their domain lapsed, got snatched and is hosted with a dummy zero content page. Many incoming links are from old DMOZ listings. Its a little better now.
Question 1: Aren't webmasters (if that's the proper term) who fail to update their DMOZ-cloned listings hurting their own rankings for all the dead links?
I would think that would happen automatically.
Doesn't G "penalize" or at least downgrade sites with lots of dead links? Such sites are clearly unmaintained to say the least.
Question 2: Can't Google easily spot snatched domains, especially when they are propped up with zero
content (parked) pages? If I were G, I would send those to the boondocks in favor of the content and relevance they so highly recommend.
It's a standard textbook example of a yes-or-no question with no right answer. If you say "yes", you're admitting to beating your wife in the past. If you say "no", you're admitting to beating her now. Either way, you just admitted something that is highly to your discredit.